Proof 9/11 was planned is in.

[aljhoa]

10,633,805 views Official Lamb of God "Laid to Rest" music video.

YouTube - Lamb of God - Laid to Rest

Al

[Mad Scientist]

so I guess we can't expect too much.

Yes I would have to agree. Some people are just too stubborn or maybe even afraid to take off their blinders, open their eyes and actually examine and question what is going on all around them. Why what if everything they were told to believe turned out to be a lie! Could they ever recover from the shock?
The real world can be a very scary place for the unenlightened.
No for them it is probably best that they keep believing in the fairy tales they been told, at least it gives them a false sense of security to hold on to.

[aljhoa]

Because they were looking for survivors you moron.

Some 56,000 people were employed at the World Trade Center Twin Towers in September 2001. Of the total 230 floors in the two buildings, 85 floors were in the NO SURVIVOR zone. That is the zone above the floors where the planes hit, the three floors in each building that were taken out by the plane crashes, and the several floors below each crash that were engulfed by the inferno caused by the 20,000 gallons of high-octane fuel that each plane was carrying. There were NO survivors on those 85 floors in the two buildings!! (48 floors in one building and 37 floors in the other!)

Of the 56,000 people who worked in the two World Trade Center buildings, some 20,500 of them worked in the no survivor zone. Remember there were no survivors on those 85 floors of the two buildings. The floors above the crashes, the floors taken out by the crashes and several floors immediately below the crash points that were engulfed by the raging inferno caused by the 20,000 gallons of high-octane fuel that each plane carried.

Of the 20,500 people employed in the no survivor zones, there is a margin of error of possibly as many as 1,500. That leaves 19,000. Of those, there could be as many as 10% who could be out for one reason or another. Probably less because vacation season was past. 10% of 19,000 is 1,900. Call it 2,000 that could have been out that day for some legitimate reason. That leaves 17,000 people that would logically be in the NO SURVIVOR zone on September 11th.
World Trade Center
Al

[Aldwyn]

Some 56,000 people were employed at the World Trade Center Twin Towers in September 2001. Of the total 230 floors in the two buildings, 85 floors were in the NO SURVIVOR zone. That is the zone above the floors where the planes hit, the three floors in each building that were taken out by the plane crashes, and the several floors below each crash that were engulfed by the inferno caused by the 20,000 gallons of high-octane fuel that each plane was carrying. There were NO survivors on those 85 floors in the two buildings!! (48 floors in one building and 37 floors in the other!)

Of the 56,000 people who worked in the two World Trade Center buildings, some 20,500 of them worked in the no survivor zone. Remember there were no survivors on those 85 floors of the two buildings. The floors above the crashes, the floors taken out by the crashes and several floors immediately below the crash points that were engulfed by the raging inferno caused by the 20,000 gallons of high-octane fuel that each plane carried.

Of the 20,500 people employed in the no survivor zones, there is a margin of error of possibly as many as 1,500. That leaves 19,000. Of those, there could be as many as 10% who could be out for one reason or another. Probably less because vacation season was past. 10% of 19,000 is 1,900. Call it 2,000 that could have been out that day for some legitimate reason. That leaves 17,000 people that would logically be in the NO SURVIVOR zone on September 11th.
World Trade Center
Al

Your numbers about how many should have been at work up there are just plain wrong. You (or somebody) just took the number of people and divided it over the number of floors is what it looks like. That is exactly the sort of "evidence" you people work with. As with all the other nonsense, it has long ago been debunked.

[aljhoa]

That is exactly the sort of "evidence" you people work with. As with all the other nonsense, it has long ago been debunked.

TWO Facts:


1.

Nonetheless, the results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

Al

2.
YouTube - New NEWS - BBC Video - WTC 7 - Prior Knowledge


Al

[Aaron]

news before it happened

I haven't seen that video - crazy.

But I do remember reading some Australian press release that gave
these SAME details BEFORE the building went down as well!

That BBC report isn't the only one that announced what was GOING
to happen.

[Mad Scientist]

OK so far you have told us that you only believe the conspiracy tail put out by the government and all other accounts are preposterous and insulting and all have been debunked. Yet you offer no evidence. So tell us precisely

[Evolvealready]

Aldwyn was banned.

[Evolvealready]

I'm not aldwyn, but let me try to answer those quickly.

OK so far you have told us that you only believe the conspiracy tail put out by the government and all other accounts are preposterous and insulting and all have been debunked. Yet you offer no evidence. So tell us precisely how you would:

Melt a steel beam using kerosene as a fuel or more to the point cut them in a manor that Slovenia described?

I have no idea who Slovenia is, but the beams and supporting rods in the exterior of the WTC (if you are unaware of the support role of the exterior in this type of building, you need to find out about it) did not have to be melted, either by kerosene or jet fuel, rather, the supports damaged by the impact debris only had to be weakened.

Explain the presence of Thermite in the debris?
[/qoute] Because a nut who lost his teaching job said he found elements that were consistent with thermite? Please. If there is any, it was used in cutting during clean up, but it is highly unlikely there was any.Let me ask you something: Why would they fake the passport? He was on the manifest. The passport doesn't prove he was on the plane. It would be silly and unneeded if your claims were true. The fact is that huge amounts of debris flew into the WTC at impact, this one because of its lightness was part of the huge amount of paper that came out of the tower. It is a lucky chance that it survived and was found, but it is hardly miraculous.

Explain how it is that a number of the reported highjackers on the plane have been found alive and well living in various mid-eastern countries?

Based on what sources? Show me a reliable source that one of them survived and you will have convinced me. I'll bet you can't. I swear, you people will believe anything that confirms your mythology.

Explain how these buildings managed to implode and fall in upon themselves and a free wall speed, heretofore only seen in controlled demolitions?[/quote]They didn't implode and it was nothing at all like a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions start at the bottom to achieve what you are talking about. Look at one for goodness sake. The towers were pancaked by the thousands of tons above collapsing on them. It is well documented how this happened and how is fits with what one would expect. Only a few nuts think otherwise, but the absurd idea that hundreds of people put thousands of bombs in the buildings and have not one has spilled the beans when the government can't even leak a CIA identity to the press without getting caught is laughable.

Explain how the two large heavy engines of the plane that hit the pentagon did not punch holes in the wall put the fuselage was able to?

OMG it has all been said so many times, but not only does eyewitness testimony show it was a plane, but the damage to the facade is consistent with a 757. That the engines did not have enough mass to make their own penetrating holes has also been confirmed. Well, 99 percent of pilots would disagree with you--DO disagree with you about that.

Explain how this plane was able to skim along the ground between lamp poles that were closer together then the wingspan of the plane and not hit them?

I don't have to, because it didn't. Prove it would have had to.

Explain how the finger prints of these on the plane were taken when the bodies were consumed in the fire?

You are listening to people who either think DNA "fingerprinting" involved fingers, or who are making things up. They used DNA of relatives to identify remains. I am sure some fingers survived, but I haven't heard anything about them being used for ID. Most of the passengers no doubt had fingerprints taken at times in the past, for passports, background checks, police run-ins, etc.

Explain with all the security cameras that are around the pentagon why we have not seen a picture of this plane as it flew into the building?

There is one that shows a plane in one frame, which is amazing, since most of those cameras have such a low frame rate. They are really a series of still shots. Catching the plane full on would nearly be a miracle.The ones from the world trade center have not been reported found. If they did survive and it was not reported, that is wrong, but it would not be proof of your conspiracy by any means, just stupidity by the government. If you are implying there were no planes, we all saw them. Were they holograms????

Explain how a British reporter was able to describe the collapse of building #7 when in the background of the shot it can be seen still standing?

Easy, he didn't. He said something someone took as describing its collapse, or the building behind him isn't the tower, or he was mistaken about its collapse. Let me ask you something. Why...for goodness sake, WHY would the government give fake, poorly timed news reports to media that could report them for it and not just let the journalists report what was happening without interfering if you are right about the conspiracy? NO REASON! The stupidity involved in your beliefs really is staggering.

So if you can come up with intelligent responses to these, ones that actually make sense rather then blanket denial then your argument would make more sense.

[ztec2002]

falling

lets play a thought game,if you fell 110 stories and hit the ground would you turn to dust or flat meat? I say flat meat.how come steal and concrete didn't,its way stronger than meat?. But it turned to dust!!!! Can we say explosion?
cheers

[Evolvealready]

lets play a thought game,if you fell 110 stories and hit the ground would you turn to dust or flat meat? I say flat meat.how come steal and concrete didn't,its way stronger than meat?. But it turned to dust!!!! Can we say explosion?
cheers

Well, you need to study the characteristics of materials if you don't think concrete will turn to dust under such circumstances. There WAS metal--a lot of it.

[Mad Scientist]

OK to your credit you tried to answer the questions without resorting to a blanket denial of the evidence. However it appears that you have not bothered to really study any the evidence that contradicts the official story. So lets take just one example, the collapse of the towers; the governmental bureaucrats tell us that this was simply caused by burning jet fuel. But no need to worry government as everything under control now and you can go to watching your soap operas and sports games.

However countering them there are now over a thousand professional engineers and architects who have actually studied the design of the buildings and the physics involved of a plane flying into them. There conclusion is there was no way that those planes aloneif they did then what other things might they be lying about? Obviously this can get very scary very quickly so I agree it is better that you just blindly accept whatever your masters tell you and not ask them embarrassing questions.

[ztec2002]

falling

alright i'll bite. how many feet up do you have to go up,
to make concrete turn to dust when it hits the ground?

cheers:

[aljhoa]

However countering them there are now over a thousand professional engineers and architects who have actually studied the design of the buildings and the physics involved of a plane flying into them. There conclusion is there was no way that those planes alone could have caused the destruction that we saw.

Straight from the horse's mouth

Nonetheless, the results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any (ground floor)given location on September 11.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

YouTube - U.S. Government lies about molten steel found at Ground Zero after 9/11

Al

[Aaron]

no duplicate memberships allowed

I'm not aldwyn, but let me try to answer those quickly.

It is against forum rules to sign up under multiple names, especially if
it is after your membership has been terminated. Do NOT sign up again.